Lauda, take a chill pill. You’re only sore at Quickseller because he was brave enough to dare deny that you are theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1912107.msg18974863#msg18974863). Hurt your ego, did it? Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day—and even a Quickseller must be honest at least once in a lifetime. He pwned you there, revealing THE TRUTH that you are not theymos.

So what's currently the status of this? Is actmyname on DT or not? Am I still in DT? I don't know how to check without modifying my trust list, and it's incredibly difficult to do that on my phone, which is ancient. You can call me a retard and I won't argue with you. The flu has kicked my ass for the past 11 days and I am still a bit scrambled.

I don't think the issue here is actmyname leaving negs for shitposters. I think it was for him negging the merit system abusers, correct? I think we've both agreed to remove feedback we left for the spammers, but it would seem that it'd be an easy enough task for him to remove the latter feedbacks in order to preserve his DT status. I definitely think actmyname should be in DT. He's doing a great job tagging idiots and obviously cares about the forum.

I don't think the issue here is actmyname leaving negs for shitposters. I think it was for him negging the merit system abusers, correct? I think we've both agreed to remove feedback we left for the spammers, but it would seem that it'd be an easy enough task for him to remove the latter feedbacks in order to preserve his DT status. I definitely think actmyname should be in DT. He's doing a great job tagging idiots and obviously cares about the forum.

Correct; the problem isn't for tagging actual merit system abusers, but rather tagging users where there isn't enough evidence to support the claim.

Correct; the problem isn't for tagging actual merit system abusers, but rather tagging users where there isn't enough evidence to support the claim.

So in this case, should we only tag users that we are strictly sure are abusing the merit system?

i.e. not through circumstantial merit exchanges of large amounts but rather threads or other media that voice merit trading/selling?Seems like it'll let alt rings get away scot-free and will also let people who do off-site trading boost their merit.

I'm willing to retract some ratings that are circumstantial but I believe there are at least some that seem pretty absolute.

Correct; the problem isn't for tagging actual merit system abusers, but rather tagging users where there isn't enough evidence to support the claim.

So in this case, should we only tag users that we are strictly sure are abusing the merit system?

i.e. not through circumstantial merit exchanges of large amounts but rather threads or other media that voice merit trading/selling?Seems like it'll let alt rings get away scot-free and will also let people who do off-site trading boost their merit.

I'm willing to retract some ratings that are circumstantial but I believe there are at least some that seem pretty absolute.

If I may, the reason why theymos doesn't like the idea of tagging people who are sending and receiving merits who *may be* alt accounts of others, and the merit system being newfangled, its only right for him to feel it is indispensable for him to avoid such behavior by the DT members, rather wait for some more time and then with more proof people can be tagged.

I'm willing to retract some ratings that are circumstantial but I believe there are at least some that seem pretty absolute.

There is a commonplace misconception that “circumstantial evidence” means weak evidence. Even in a criminal court which requires the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” (also known as “moral certainty”), it is indeed possible to obtain a conviction based exclusively on circumstantial evidence. As a practical matter, this is very difficult, and should rarely happen. But it does happen; and there’s nothing wrong with that in principle.

Of course, this is neither a law court nor a criminal proceeding. I am only pointing out that “circumstantial evidence” can meet even the most demanding standards. The question is not whether the evidence be “circumstantial”, but rather, whether it be strong enough to meet whatever standard you are applying.

(Also n.b. that even the most demanding standards do not demand absolute certainty—only “moral certainty”. If the only possible way the accused didn’t do it is that space aliens did it instead, then you can’t be absolutely certain of his guilt. You can’t be absolutely certain that space aliens didn’t do it! You can’t even prove that aliens don’t exist! But you can be “morally certain”, beyond any reasonable doubt. Reasonable people understand that. Absolute certainty does not exist in this world.)

If I were in your position, I would aim somewhere between the standard of “clear and convincing evidence“, and that of “the preponderance of the evidence”. The latter seems relatively weak to me; but it’s good enough for winning a big-money lawsuit most places in the Anglo/American influenced parts of the world. That seems it ought suffice for distrust-tagging people accused of abuse on an Internet forum. I’d want to aim a bit higher, because I would also desire to be highly careful about not stomping on innocent users. I don’t like hurting innocent people. I would also have a zero-tolerance policy for anybody who was even a little bit guilty. This forum now has a great opportunity to recover from having been buried in garbage. It is not enhanced by the presence of people who believe in being halfway honest, and just try to cheat the new system a little bit—the same way they just cheated a little bit on school tests, when they wished to merit a passing grade.

As food for thought, and not to suggest any sort of legal proceeding or legal implications, here is an intentionally cute layout of a spectrum of standards of proof; treat this as if I made it all up on the spot:

Reasonable (articulable) suspicion: You have a suspicion which can be clearly explained in reasonable terms. More than a mere hunch; much more than a guess. But still no more than a suspicion.

Probable cause: On the face of things (at first sight, “prima facie”), the accused probably did it.

Preponderance of the evidence: Evidence of guilt outweighs evidence of innocence. Implemented via those balance scales you see carved into statues of blindfolded ladies. Note: This requires reasonable thoroughness in loading both sides of the scale, not just stuffing one side and jumping to a conclusion.

Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence of guilt is strong. Evidence of innocence is weak or nonexistent.

Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt: The only way he didn’t do it is if space aliens did it instead.

I hope that helps provide materials for a mental framework to support tagging decisions (past or future) which will gain not only your own confidence, but also theymos’. For your work has been important for the forum’s well-being as a community at a critical moment. Based on the timing, I have a reasonable suspicion that the DDoS attack expressed displeasure over the merit system. Thank you for your efforts to protect it, actmyname.

Correct; the problem isn't for tagging actual merit system abusers, but rather tagging users where there isn't enough evidence to support the claim.

So in this case, should we only tag users that we are strictly sure are abusing the merit system?

i.e. not through circumstantial merit exchanges of large amounts but rather threads or other media that voice merit trading/selling?Seems like it'll let alt rings get away scot-free and will also let people who do off-site trading boost their merit.

Well, defining what *definite abuse* of the merit system (without a direct alt account connection) is somewhat hard. IMO, in cases where there is no clear alt connection you should watch for more signs of abuse (not just points sent once or twice between a few people).

As food for thought, and not to suggest any sort of legal proceeding or legal implications, here is an intentionally cute layout of a spectrum of standards of proof; treat this as if I made it all up on the spot:

Reasonable (articulable) suspicion: You have a suspicion which can be clearly explained in reasonable terms. More than a mere hunch; much more than a guess. But still no more than a suspicion.

Probable cause: On the face of things (at first sight, “prima facie”), the accused probably did it.

Preponderance of the evidence: Evidence of guilt outweighs evidence of innocence. Implemented via those balance scales you see carved into statues of blindfolded ladies. Note: This requires reasonable thoroughness in loading both sides of the scale, not just stuffing one side and jumping to a conclusion.

Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence of guilt is strong. Evidence of innocence is weak or nonexistent.

Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt: The only way he didn’t do it is if space aliens[1] did it instead.

The 4th case is the simplest, and I think that was what theymos was aiming at with his statement of clear abuse. However, as per your post as well, I believe this to be short-sighted. It's very easy for people to abuse the merit system, people which are not alts of each other, via outside communication channels. If we were to completely skip the first three standards, then we would probably miss the majority of abusers.

I have only one thing against Actmyname. It's the fact that he did give a negative trust to one member of the french community for selling merit (which is not the case) while not understanding the language or the discussion that was happening for that member to send the merit.

DT2 members are not some kind of a bitcointalk police. So don't destroy accounts reputation for things you don't even understand.

I have only one thing against Actmyname. It's the fact that he did give a negative trust to one member of the french community for selling merit (which is not the case) while not understanding the language or the discussion that was happening for that member to send the merit.

DT2 members are not some kind of a bitcointalk police. So don't destroy accounts reputation for things you don't even understand.

Okay. I looked at the posts again. For someone that is using merit for the first time, it may be possible that ZenFR wanted to stress the importance of the bad deal.Only the second one is a little bit unsound but it's understandable why the user would send the same amount to a post of agreement.

Instead of retaliatory feedback and trust exclusions, the situation could have been explained rather than supporting members stating, "you don't know the reason for the merit". Doesn't really help. Especially since ZenFR never reached out to me themselves (rather, it was another user that decided to PM me about it and then never followed up), I just treated it like another case of a raging red-trusted user. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What to rejoice? Actmyname is doing his best to lessen the toxics here in our community, I really think that he is commendable because he used his precious time to track down shitposters and account farmers that doesn't contribute anything here in the forum they only care about being paid at the bounty even though they are not deserving pfffft.

Here comes the sadist Butthurt troll!But actmyname most likely won't leave Bitcointalk just because of the fact that he may be removed from DT. He'll still continue to do what he used to do before he was a DT member. Just go away.

Yes, removing from DT1 will not mean a thing to actmyname and he will continue his way. You and other people who complain on this person just have no power to remove him from the forum. To be removed he should break forum's rules and become banned by theymos, but while he is just commenting he will stau\y here as long as he wishs.

Just as an update, I'm investigating the accounts now to double check for possible other alts and connectivity.

So far I've cemented the linkage of two users and removed two negatives. That is, IvanBerkut and ZenFR are now no longer tagged.

Please actmyname, kindly remove the negative trust you tagged on me, I know I was guilty and I honestly didn't understand how this merit thing works, I sent an undeserving merit to alltimer , my bad. I read if I keep sMerits there's no point as it may be decayed by system. I am wrong at what I did. I urge you to please remove this negative trust. I have kept a clean slate, this is my first default, am indeed sorry for this.

I have reached out to you via PM 72hrs after just as you stipulated but I got no response. I really don't know how best I can reach out to you again.

Just as an update, I'm investigating the accounts now to double check for possible other alts and connectivity.

So far I've cemented the linkage of two users and removed two negatives.

That is, IvanBerkut and ZenFR are now no longer tagged.

Please actmyname, kindly remove the negative trust you tagged on me, I know I was guilty and I honestly didn't understand how this merit thing works, I sent an undeserving merit to alltimer , my bad. I read if I keep sMerits there's no point as it may be decayed by system. I am wrong at what I did. I urge you to please remove this negative trust. I have kept a clean slate, this is my first default, am indeed sorry for this.

I have reached out to you via PM 72hrs after just as you stipulated but I got no response. I really don't know how best I can reach out to you again.

he doesnt care at all hes some loser 15 year old kid that think hes a neg trust police its actually hilarious to watch.... i literally pleaded being deadly honest saying i did mess up and i honestly didnt think saying ill merit your good post for my good post was some sort of scam or cheat when the system is literally to merit good posts? but ok i took the blame anyways and said i messed up , but my account should be negged forever??? ive been around 6 months and never did one bad thing i make a 1 merit mistake and my accounts ruined because some kid who think hes an FBI forum agent? makes 0 sense to me and i dont think its right at all... people mess up and misinterpret things, its called giving a 2nd chance but he just brushed it off "negged stays" without even giving a way back in saying help the community out for a month or something, its not a death sentence to mess up one time slightly, i didnt hack an account, i didnt farm accounts, i didnt do anything bad to the community... its a joke , i was banned 7 days and learned my lesson .... then come back day of to my account ruined by a seperate guy who knows nothing about the situation , now my account is ruined

he doesnt care at all hes some loser 15 year old kid that think hes a neg trust police its actually hilarious to watch.... i literally pleaded being deadly honest saying i did mess up and i honestly didnt think saying ill merit your good post for my good post was some sort of scam or cheat when the system is literally to merit good posts? but ok i took the blame anyways and said i messed up , but my account should be negged forever??? ive been around 6 months and never did one bad thing i make a 1 merit mistake and my accounts ruined because some kid who think hes an FBI forum agent? makes 0 sense to me and i dont think its right at all... people mess up and misinterpret things, its called giving a 2nd chance but he just brushed it off "negged stays" without even giving a way back in saying help the community out for a month or something, its not a death sentence to mess up one time slightly, i didnt hack an account, i didnt farm accounts, i didnt do anything bad to the community... its a joke , i was banned 7 days and learned my lesson .... then come back day of to my account ruined by a seperate guy who knows nothing about the situation , now my account is ruined

he doesnt care at all hes some loser 15 year old kid that think hes a neg trust police its actually hilarious to watch.... i literally pleaded being deadly honest saying i did mess up and i honestly didnt think saying ill merit your good post for my good post was some sort of scam or cheat when the system is literally to merit good posts? but ok i took the blame anyways and said i messed up , but my account should be negged forever??? ive been around 6 months and never did one bad thing i make a 1 merit mistake and my accounts ruined because some kid who think hes an FBI forum agent? makes 0 sense to me and i dont think its right at all... people mess up and misinterpret things, its called giving a 2nd chance but he just brushed it off "negged stays" without even giving a way back in saying help the community out for a month or something, its not a death sentence to mess up one time slightly, i didnt hack an account, i didnt farm accounts, i didnt do anything bad to the community... its a joke , i was banned 7 days and learned my lesson .... then come back day of to my account ruined by a seperate guy who knows nothing about the situation , now my account is ruined

Merit was introduced to help clean up the community.

You tried to cheat the system to your advantage.

How can you not see why that would be viewed as untrustworthy? If it makes zero sense to you, and you are being honest, then I have to say you need more life experience. :/